Insight in into Einstein's beliefs in God and the Jewish people

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Intersting information. Does this change your feelings from one of the greatest minds of modern thought? I find it fascinating at his definite use of language. I would like to hear how he came to his conclusions and whether he used scientific reasoning for this. The main purpose is just to hear the reaction from my fellow Orgah's and their opinions supporting or disagreeing with Mr. Einstein.

Read it earlier today. He's right about religion IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

The main purpose is just to hear the reaction from my fellow Orgah's and their opinions supporting or disagreeing with Mr. Einstein.

---

Whilst you were silently lobbying for your Senior Membership, we had about 256 threads (:toilet:) about this subject. Before I throw up, let me quickly say that Einstein was wrong on the Bible; you don't have to believe in the sky-God to appreciate the book as a source of wisdom.

It's spelled out Einstein; E - I - N - S - T - E - I - N. Thank you. :whip:

Has anyone ever seen "gentlemans agreement" ?
The proffesor in that film always stuck me as a charicature of Einstein

Quote:

---

Whilst you were silently lobbying for your Senior Membership

---

Just goes to show I should wear my gigs more these days. Congrats on senior member Dave, there's hope for foul-mouthed-me yet! :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

I essentially agree with his view on religion, but my prejudice aside, as he made his name in quite a different field, other than that he was clearly an intelligent man I don't think that his views carry any special weight.

I know a reasonable amount about the law, but I don't think it means anyone should pay any more attention to my opinions on general relativity.

Faith, by definition, is a choice. You choose to believe your parents loved you or you don't. There's no objective proof of it, nor is there proof of the existence, or the lack thereof of a supreme being, call Him/Her what you will.

I agree with EA though, that Einstein's preeminent status as a physicist shouldn't necessarily convey 'extra credence' to his views. Physics is the study of the knowable, and theology & dogma are concerned with the unknowable.

'grats on the Senior Membership, Dave. IA, I'm flabbergasted at the oversight. You should have been way ahead of me in line. I'd argue everyone that everyone that has posted in this thread already should be in the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Faith, by definition, is a choice. You choose to believe your parents loved you or you don't. There's no objective proof of it, nor is there proof of the existence, or the lack thereof of a supreme being, call Him/Her what you will.

I agree with EA though, that Einstein's preeminent status as a physicist shouldn't necessarily convey 'extra credence' to his views. Physics is the study of the knowable, and theology & dogma are concerned with the unknowable.

---

I believe that the point of the article is that Einsteins more ambivalent statements have often been used in support of religion.

Quote:

---

I'd argue everyone that everyone that has posted in this thread already should be in the club.

---

Don't be silly Don , I posted in this thread already .

Quote:

---

You choose to believe your parents loved you or you don't.

---

Gives Don a great big ~:grouphug:

Sorry mate, knowing your parents love you is not an act of faith.

Quote:

---

IA, I'm flabbergasted at the oversight. You should have been way ahead of me in line.

---

No ta. I'm happy as I am. Unique. :laugh4: :yes: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

"As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

---

He might not believe in religion but his words are prophetic.

Nor do I think only priests can say if God exists anymore then McDonald's burger flippers decide what is a good hamburger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't be silly Don , I posted in this thread already .

---

I was well aware of that when I made the statement. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I was well aware of that when I made the statement. ~:cheers:

---

Seconded. :2thumbsup:

We should start a Senior Club and appoint Tribesman honorary president. And then depose him. I mean, come on..
:laugh4:

But then I wouldn't be allowed to play. :cry:

Einstein was an enlightened man indeed....I see no big surprise in his declaration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Whilst you were silently lobbying for your Senior Membership, we had about 256 threads (:toilet:) about this subject. Before I throw up, let me quickly say that Einstein was wrong on the Bible; you don't have to believe in the sky-God to appreciate the book as a source of wisdom.

---

I apologise for my causing your nausia. I did not realise that the subject of Einstein's beliefs had been discussed in 256 threads. Strangly enough, I could not find 256, but, much like the belief in a Creator, one must have faith in their fellow man, so I'll take your word for it. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Strangly enough, I could not find 256

---

That's because you're no Einstein. And you're no journalist either or you wouldn't take my word for it. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

We should start a Senior Club and appoint Tribesman honorary president.

---

There already is a grumpy old men thread...

/runs away

Man Dave you used to be so sexy. We, the rejected, will just have to rise without you, and rise we will like a purple helmet on a pole.

I find this thread interesting, I won't say more because Adrian is posting here.

How about a plumb topped sausage?

Anyway, just as others have said, he was great scientist but I would not ask him to make me cake.
Would be well skunky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I find this thread interesting, I won't say more because Adrian is posting here.

---

Eh? :stunned:

See that's why, did you really think we didn't notice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

See that's why, did you really think we didn't notice?

---

So that's.. you mean, you've..

So, you guys found out, huh? :shame:

The wisdom of any man, even the smartest ever born on the Earth, doesn't mean much. If God exists, then the wisdom of the wisest man on Earth is foolishness to God. Utlimately, all & any statements about there being no God from the mouth of any man, is merely unfounded speculation. It cannot be proven. Therefore it is unimportant what any man thinks. God or the lack of God is what it is, speculation about it from the smartest man on Earth has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

If the letter described in the article is true, though, then Einstein does indeed lose a lot of credibility. What makes his lack of belief in God - which is simply a guess - any "less childish" than belief in God? There isn't any reasonable answer to that. Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

It should also be noted that Jesus said it is good to accept him and God as children accept him. So while Einstein meant his "childish" comments as a slur against belief in God, in fact a "childish belief in God" may indeed be the best possible thing for human beings to have.

What's up with the last paragraph? Thought you'd given up on the New Testament as too soft...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

What's up with the last paragraph? Thought you'd given up on the New Testament as too soft...?

---

I do not agree with everything in the New Testament, at the same time, I do not think it's entirely invalid either nor do I think that Jesus was a sham. That's why I used the word may in my previous post instead of simply making it a definitive statement. I've realized that I can't understand everything for certain, nor can anyone. Which incidentally, is precisely the problem with the alleged statement by Einstein that this thread is discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I do not agree with everything in the New Testament, at the same time, I do not think it's entirely invalid either nor do I think that Jesus was a sham. That's why I used the word may in my previous post instead of simply making it a definitive statement. I've realized that I can't understand everything for certain, nor can anyone. Which incidentally, is precisely the problem with the alleged statement by Einstein that this thread is discussing.

---

So how do you know that it is Christianity that is correct and not Hinduism? I think asking such questions is nearing Einsteins line of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The wisdom of any man, even the smartest ever born on the Earth, doesn't mean much. If God exists, then the wisdom of the wisest man on Earth is foolishness to God. Utlimately, all & any statements about there being no God from the mouth of any man, is merely unfounded speculation. It cannot be proven. Therefore it is unimportant what any man thinks. God or the lack of God is what it is, speculation about it from the smartest man on Earth has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

If the letter described in the article is true, though, then Einstein does indeed lose a lot of credibility. What makes his lack of belief in God - which is simply a guess - any "less childish" than belief in God? There isn't any reasonable answer to that. Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

It should also be noted that Jesus said it is good to accept him and God as children accept him. So while Einstein meant his "childish" comments as a slur against belief in God, in fact a "childish belief in God" may indeed be the best possible thing for human beings to have.

---

So far, the best and most thoughtful post within this thread. Thank you Nav.:yes:

Quote:

---

So far, the best and most thoughtful post within this thread.

---

Don't be silly Dave apart from it being largely nonsense for it to be the best and most thoughtful it would discuss the actual topic . I mean seriously .....

Quote:

---

Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Here have a clue , you asked .... I would like to hear how he came to his conclusions and whether he used scientific reasoning for this. ...so what was the letter , what was he discussing and with who was he discussing it ?
If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't be silly Dave apart from it being largely nonsense for it to be the best and most thoughtful it would discuss the actual topic . I mean seriously .....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Here have a clue , you asked .... I would like to hear how he came to his conclusions and whether he used scientific reasoning for this. ...so what was the letter , what was he discussing and with who was he discussing it ?
If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .

---

Wow, your post really added to the conversation. Ah, the Tribsey Troll at his finest.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Actually I though Navaros answer was a very good rebuttal from a religious perspective.

I'll break it down into its paragraphs and add my comments below each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The wisdom of any man, even the smartest ever born on the Earth, doesn't mean much. If God exists, then the wisdom of the wisest man on Earth is foolishness to God. Utlimately, all & any statements about there being no God from the mouth of any man, is merely unfounded speculation. It cannot be proven. Therefore it is unimportant what any man thinks. God or the lack of God is what it is, speculation about it from the smartest man on Earth has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

---

No matter how smart one is or how many people agree with you it does not make a statement true. Most science is written in the third person to try and remove personal authourity from an individual report. God cannot be proven or disproven. However one can't prove which religion is right or not either, or if indeed any on Earth is correct at all. So why not treat them with equal weight and not raise one above the other. Which is what Einstein was talking about too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

If the letter described in the article is true, though, then Einstein does indeed lose a lot of credibility. What makes his lack of belief in God - which is simply a guess - any "less childish" than belief in God? There isn't any reasonable answer to that. Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

---

Correct some of his remarks might have gotten him a warning point in the Backroom. But as a private message we normally don't police that. Also what he states is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish

---

So he complements the stories as honourable but their format as primitive (like virtually all religions) and the stories as pretty childish (most religions present there stories in easy to understand primary school level ideas). So it would be rather difficult hypothetically speaking to give him a warning point or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

It should also be noted that Jesus said it is good to accept him and God as children accept him. So while Einstein meant his "childish" comments as a slur against belief in God, in fact a "childish belief in God" may indeed be the best possible thing for human beings to have.

---

Nice riposte and turning of the cheek. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Wow, your post really added to the conversation.

---

Yeah well Dave it might help if you had the faintest idea what the subject matter actually is .If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .
:book:

Quote:

---

Actually I though Navaros answer was a very good rebuttal from a religious perspective.

---

Apart from the fact that it doesn't rebut the statement made in the letter .
The main failing in navs response is nicely illustrated here.....

Quote:

---

Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science.

---

...as he managed to get it completely backwards , it was Gutkind whose philosphy was based on personal emotion not logic or science , though Einstein agreed with some of his thoughts as even though they were based on what could be described as a personal emotional attatchment to myths they could be supported by facts and logic .

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

---

Couldn't have said it better than my boy Ice just did.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

---

Religious discrimination... :thumbsdown:

Einstein was a great man, but he also stole shrinky-drinks from god.

Quote:

---

Religious discrimination...

---

Is it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it ?

---

Preferencing someone because of a belief they hold, Tribes.

Isn't it interesting how the religious are now less keen on the man and the atheists more so?

Why does it matter.

Quote:

---

Preferencing someone because of a belief they hold, Tribes.

---

What you mean like preference because someone thinks they are gods chosen people yet can provide no factual proof to support it , thats the neo-mystical philosophers with the religeous discrimination not Einstein .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What you mean like preference because someone thinks they are gods chosen people yet can provide no factual proof to support it , thats the neo-mystical philosophers with the religeous discrimination not Einstein .

---

What Ice did was religious discrimination, that's why I quoted him, noone said that about Einstein.

Quote:

---

What Ice did was religious discrimination

---

How so ?
Do the honesty and frankness of Einsteins assesment of the book the author sent him not stike you as very good and much better than many of his other more well known thoughts on the topic ? As such would they not raise your opinions on the man in relation to the topic ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Religious discrimination... :thumbsdown:

---

You'll find it hard not to discriminate when it comes to belief in the metaphysical, especially when religion comes into it.

Which faith do you follow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Religious discrimination... :thumbsdown:

---

I guess you just tend to like people more when their views are similar to yours... Simply liking someone more than another would itself be discrimination? theoretically maybe but too strong a word to use....:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How so ?
Do the honesty and frankness of Einsteins assesment of the book the author sent him not stike you as very good and much better than many of his other more well known thoughts on the topic ? As such would they not raise your opinions on the man in relation to the topic ?

---

Well personally I would say a real scientist would be best not speculating on something he can't apply his particular skillset to. Frankly I think Einstein's comments look like a man out of his depth and are not really any better than Pub Philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Religious discrimination... :thumbsdown:

---

If thinking the Jews are no better than other religious sects and that most religion is a bunch of childish superstitions, than yes I guess I'm discriminating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Whilst you were silently lobbying for your Senior Membership,

---

Congratulations DevDave.

An honor long overdue. Seeing a colorful character such as yourself granted Senior honors gives me a touch of hope that a mad man such as myself might one day also earn a golden goblet full of the worlds most delicious beer in the sacred restriced "senior members only" area. But I won't hold my breath. :laugh4:

:medievalcheers: Congrats bro!

Congrats, DevDave :bow:

As for Einstein's beliefs, it doesn't seem like he considered it to be important himself, otherwise he'd been more upfront about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Religious discrimination... :thumbsdown:

---

Nothing wrong with discrimination as long as it doesn't stem from prejudice or bias.

Quote:

---

Well personally I would say a real scientist would be best not speculating on something he can't apply his particular skillset to. Frankly I think Einstein's comments look like a man out of his depth and are not really any better than Pub Philosophy.

---

Sorry , that makes no sense .
Gutkind sent his philosophies to Einstein for his appraisal . Both have made comments in favour of the same earlier philosophers along similar lines in both the Judaic and Christian schools (and ancients though I havn't seen any of Einsteins on the eastern) .
The questions posed and the answers given are as old as religeous and scientific philosophy and all the blends of the two are .
How on earth could you possibly say that it is speculation on something that he cannot apply his skillset to . It is a debate that philosophers scientists and theologians have been pulling their beards out over for thousands of years .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How so ?
Do the honesty and frankness of Einsteins assesment of the book the author sent him not stike you as very good and much better than many of his other more well known thoughts on the topic ? As such would they not raise your opinions on the man in relation to the topic ?

---

I think God would say his thoughts in this letter are pretty wrong. :sweatdrop:
So why would this raise my opinion about him?
Just saying he's a better man because he's an atheist is IMO pretty stupid, that's similar to saying he's a better man because he prefers chocolate ice over vanilla ice which I'd call flavor discrimination. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Just saying he's a better man because he's an atheist is IMO pretty stupid

---

But was he an atheist though ?
How do you square that with his other comments on religeous/mystical philosophers ?
A simple question for you Husar .
This letter he wrote , what was it about ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This letter he wrote , what was it about ?

---

Well, I didn't read it, has Ice read it?
But I heard Gutkind used to send his philosophies to Einstein for his appraisal but then again that doesn't seem to have a lot to do with whether Ice is discriminating or not, your view and that of Ice seem to be based on the "fact" that atheism = correct but there are people who do not agree with that just like atheists do not agree with christians, buddhists etc. on their spiritual beliefs and my opinion is that this should be mostly taken out of judgement since we don't even really know why some people are more religious than others. One scientist I saw even said there's a part of our brain that seems to have an influence on how religious we are, so being religious is genetic and thus similar to being homosexual and saying that homosexuals are worse because they're homosexuals is pretty politically incorrect and thus saying a persona is worse for being religious is pretty politically incorrect which incidentally ends this argument for me here because it was not meant as a big deal anyway(I kinda like Ice you know, even though he's an atheist) and because Einstein was a great man anyway, no matter his religious beliefs.

Kthxbye.

Quote:

---

your view and that of Ice seem to be based on the "fact" that atheism = correct

---

OK one more small question Husar ..or actually a very big one .
What is an atheist ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

OK one more small question Husar ..or actually a very big one .
What is an atheist ?

---

Litterally it would be someone who holds no belief.:beam:

Quote:

---

Litterally it would be someone who holds no belief.

---

Nice try but no cigar .

An atheist is someone who denies the existance of gods.

Which essentially brings us to where you might want to go that Einstein wasn't an atheist but just didn't like religions, or maybe not. :shrug:

Quote:

---

An atheist is someone who denies the existance of gods.

---

Is it ?
Since the topic centres around philosophy is that definition sufficient . Atheism is a very wide description isn't it with many branches , since in this case both people in question were basedin the Jewish tradition , how many different branches of atheism are there in Jewish philosophies and how many of those fit you definition ?
Like I said about those three words I put to you ....its a very big question :yes:

Jewish atheism sounds like a contradiction in terms, a bastardisation of the concept, not like it isn't normal today but I find it quite...weird, just like catholicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, I didn't read it, has Ice read it?
But I heard Gutkind used to send his philosophies to Einstein for his appraisal but then again that doesn't seem to have a lot to do with whether Ice is discriminating or not, your view and that of Ice seem to be based on the "fact" that atheism = correct but there are people who do not agree with that just like atheists do not agree with christians, buddhists etc. on their spiritual beliefs and my opinion is that this should be mostly taken out of judgement since we don't even really know why some people are more religious than others. One scientist I saw even said there's a part of our brain that seems to have an influence on how religious we are, so being religious is genetic and thus similar to being homosexual and saying that homosexuals are worse because they're homosexuals is pretty politically incorrect and thus saying a persona is worse for being religious is pretty politically incorrect which incidentally ends this argument for me here because it was not meant as a big deal anyway(I kinda like Ice you know, even though he's an atheist) and because Einstein was a great man anyway, no matter his religious beliefs.

Kthxbye.

---

I'm not an atheist, Husar. Reread the wording of my post.

Quote:

---

Jewish atheism sounds like a contradiction in terms

---

Perhaps thats because you don't understand the varied philosophies of atheism .
Edit to add ...not of course that I can understand them as there are so many and lots of them seem to be directly contradictory of each other ...I suppose thats why philosophers have been tearing their own and each others beards out for thousands of years .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Perhaps thats because you don't understand the varied philosophies of atheism .

---

I never studied atheism.

theos=divinity, or those beings posessing divinity (Greek)

a = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

In common parlance and the widely accepted usage of the term, atheists are those opposed to the belief in the supernatural, divinities included. Yes, there are people that call themselves atheists that don't technically meet this definition, but I would say they are mislabeled agnostics or some other such.

I do find it a conundrum for Jewish atheists. To Jews, what separates them from other semitic peoples is descent from Israel (Jacob) and the adherence to the coventant Yaweh established with Abraham and his descendants. If they deny the existence of Yaweh, then obviously they would deny the existence of said covenant, and therefore, there would cease to be a physical difference between themselves and their family versus other semitic peoples.

Well now Don thats better , but how about...

Quote:

---

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

---

... what is the measure of divinity and how can a flawed creature have any understanding of it ?
The questions about atheism and what it is goes right back to them greek fellas that gave you the origins of the word and the philosophers stillargue about it ...but hey thats what philosophy is isn't it .
BTW that conundrum you speak of , if anyone out there can find a clip of Proffesor Liebermans (Sam Jaffe) scene from the film I mentioned (or even a transcript) it would be appreciated as I cannot recall it word for word and it is (although fiction) an interesting little piece on this subject .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

theos=divinity, or those beings posessing divinity (Greek)

a = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

Therefore, atheos, against divinity or those beings possessing divinity.

In common parlance and the widely accepted usage of the term, atheists are those opposed to the belief in the supernatural, divinities included. Yes, there are people that call themselves atheists that don't technically meet this definition, but I would say they are mislabeled agnostics or some other such.

---

Thanks Don, that's what I meant but you can say it better than I can. :bow:

It reminds me of Satanists who don't worship Satan, it's like people sitting on a table but nowadays you can say anything and mean anything anyway. :dizzy2:

I might have found a transcript of the speech you refer to, Tribesman - is this it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lieberman/Jaffe

"I have no religion, so I am not Jewish by religion. I am a scientist, so I must rely on science which tells me I am not Jewish by race, since there is no such thing as a Jewish type... I remain a Jew because the world makes it an advantage not to be one. So, for many of us, it becomes a matter of pride to call ourselves Jews."

---

The quotation was embedded in this book preview.

Why thank you Kukri :2thumbsup: , though it makes a small mistake in calling the Lieberman charachter the second . The second would fall to Greens "but not the [insert Jewish slur]-ey ones" Jewish secretary .
Edit , oh perhaps I should explain . given the subject of this topic and the time frame it took part in the discourse between Einstein and Gutkind carried the the issues of the day together with the normal philosophical differences between the rationalists and fundamentlists .As would be noted for example by references to the likes of Kant and Spinoza by the two in their writings on the subject .
I suppose it goes back to python if I may crave the modertors indulgence...philosopher = unemployed bullshitter

Indulgence partially granted, as you make a salient point otherwise.

However, slur-speech, whether written by a member, quoted of a playwright, or spoken by god almighty... is not allowed (and was thus edited).

Kindly continue. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone[I

a[/I] = against (I believe Latin, not sure if it was a Greek grammatical construct as well).

---

I'm fairly sure it was also the Greek construct for the opposite.

So, Richard Dawkins was one of the (unsuccessful) bidders for the document
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...on-letter.html

which ended up selling for $340K.

Why is this suprising in any way? Einstein was a scientist. Scientists use the scientific method. All religions fail spectaculary in the scientific method, having no evidence whatsoever. Him believing in religion would just be being a bad scientist.

At least thats my reasoning anyway. Feel free to correct me if im wrong.